The Family - Fun for all the family (the on-screen one, anyway)

Or at least those who like kicking the hell out of you if you happen to annoy them. Yes, Robert DeNiro plays a mob boss (who’d have thought that?!), but this time one who has turned on his former life (and more importantly colleagues) and is now living – with his family, obviously – in sunny France. However, his former gangsters decide to hunt him down and now the family faces more than just surly French supermarket owners.

‘The Family’ has come in for a fair amount of criticism. Yes, it has a stellar cast (and director – Luc Besson), so perhaps expectations were a tad too high for this. And, sure, it’s no ‘Goodfellars’ (despite DeNiro actually watching Goodfellars during the film itself!), but it’s not that bad either.

DeNiro carries the film (naturally), but Michelle Pfeiffer plays her part, too. As do the kids and Tommy Lee Jones (as the poor agent assigned with the task of protecting this family of criminals). The major flaw people seem to be finding with this film is that most of the characters are pretty unlikable. Yes, they’re criminals and tend to beat the hell out of people for things that most of us would just shrug off with an expression of mild annoyance. But, these people aren’t your next door neighbours, they exist purely on-screen. Hence you only have to spend just under two hours with them.

Ultimately, it’s no classic, but if you’re a fan of DeNiro and you don’t have great expectations that it’s going to be another classic, then you should enjoy it enough. Although you may not feel that compelled to watch it again for a while.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Braindead (1992, aka 'Dead Alive') - Bl00dy brilliant!

Long before Peter Jackson's name was linked with mega-budget films, such as the 'Lord of the Rings' saga, 'King Kong' and whatever others he's done since, the writer/director (and sometimes actor) seemed more in favour of crazy, over-the-top gore and silliness.  I'm not saying that the 'Lord of the Rings' movies weren't awesome, as Jackson is a very talented director.  However, there are times when I pine for a drop of twenty of the 'red stuff' flying in all directions.

Whether you know the film as 'Braindead' or 'Dead Alive,' it's set about fifty years ago in a quiet little down in New Zealand.  A young man called Lionel's life starts off simple enough, looking after his overbearing mother (perfectly played by Elizabeth Moody), until she's bitten by a 'rat monkey' during a trip to the zoo.  Instead of just reporting this and getting the appropriate medical attention, they let the wound fester and slowly, but very surely, she starts to change into a zombie, before doing what the undead do best... biting - and therefore spreading - their plague.

Unfortunately, during this particular zombie apocalypse, no one thought to just call Rick and Daryl from 'The Walking Dead' to just shoot these ghouls in the head.  Lionel isn't the type to wield a crossbow or magnum, instead choosing the more gentile option of simply locking them in the basement and sedating them in between meals of bowls of custard (did you know zombies also eat custard?  Well... apparently, they do).

Sadly, regular meals of sugary dessert is no match for a zombie's thirst for human flesh and Lionel soon finds himself the custodian of more and more of them, until... well, if you've seen one zombie movie then you know how they eventually turn out.  What transpires is just one epicly-hilarious horror film.  I know it's largely known for its gore (which is a fair point).  However, if you're expecting something that is gory AND scary, then this isn't it. 'Braindead' knows it's silly and plays up to it at every moment.  It's more of a comedy than a horror, with moments of - brilliant - gore thrown in there.  It's true... you're unlikely to see a more gory movie to this day and, to make things even better, being made in 1992 all effects were practical and therefore a lot more 'real' than the regular CGI-fest we get today.

The performances from the central two characters (Timothy Balme and Diana Penalver) and as good as any you'd expect to see in a horror movie, but the real stars are (as I already mentioned) Elizabeth Moody as Lionel's evil mother (and that's just BEFORE she became part of the undead!) and also Ian Watkin, as Lionel's truly disgusting 'Uncle Les.' The local priest also made me laugh, but isn't in the film for a long as he probably could have been, but his notable line of 'I kick a$$ for the Lord!' will live with me forever.  I'm not sure I can count a certain 'infant' zombie as a 'character,' but, again, little 'Selwyn' will also be a continued source of amusement for me.

I read online that, in the final act of 'Braindead,' they got through about five gallons of blood per second (or something like that - either way, it was a lot!).  That should tell you all you need to know about the film.  It is totally disgusting, possibly the more gory film you're likely to find, it's totally over-the-top and crazy and, if you're into something like that, it's definitely the one for you.  Plus it has the lines, 'Your mother ate my dog!' in it and the subsequent response, 'Well... not all of it.'

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Paranormal Activity 3 - More of the same  

Picture the scene... An empty room. Still an empty room. Wait ten seconds. A little bit more the empty room. Something moves. Repeat.

Just thread the above together for 80 minutes and you have a chapter in the Paranormal Activity franchise.

Am I being harsh? I actually liked the first movie. The first half was a little slow, but there were some genuinely creepy moments in the second act.

However, part 3 could basically be part 2. It follows the formula exactly. Yes, you get a few scares along the way. Yes, I even jumped and my heart raced when something jumped out at you, but if you've seen either of the previous instalments then you've seen this one.

It's technically a prequel to the previous ones. I guess if you REALLY loved them, you'll like this.

I noticed that it was produced for £5 million and made £105 million. With that kind of money-making power behind it, I'm guessing this will not be the last Paranormal film we'll be seeing. Although it WILL be the last one I'll be watching.

4/10 Dumb and Dumber could understand this film

Mean Creek - 'Stand by Me's' lost lost cousin

I mentioned the classic Stephen King book-to-film adaptation 'Stand by Me' in the title, therefore I can officially not bother talking about the similarities for the rest of the review. 'Mean Creek' begins with a - young and slightly chubby Josh Peck - bullying another boy (Rory Culkin) during school and filming the altercation.  Instead of going to any adults, Culkin confides in his older brother and his friends later that day.  Between them all, they hatch a plan to get revenge on the bully by luring him into the woods on a pretext of a fishing trip and leaving him out there, naked.  I guess it's fair to say that things don't go entirely according to plan.

What follows is a tale about a group of young people who deliberately separate themselves from the laws and morals of society (and adults, obviously) in order to embark on a voyage into nature.  It's a film of 'two halves' and, when I say 'two halves' I probably mean three quarters and one quarter.  The first 75% is a sort of slow build-up where we get to know the characters.  In other films this could be pretty dull, if it wasn't for the underlying sense of dread and tension that is gradually forming.  When it finally happens (yes, about three quarters of the way through), the film naturally changes pace and format.  It's a release and the 'final act' shows us the aftermath of what's gone before.

If it has a true strength it's the performances of the youngsters at the centre of the story.  It can always be hit or miss when you have a young cast.  Many a time you can see the cracks in their acting ability.  Not here.  Every last one gives a great performance, especially Culkin and Peck.

I know I'm being a bit vague as to what happens, but this film is really good.  Yes, it's not a white-knuckle, thrill-ride, but it's not a long film and definitely worth your time if you're looking for something a little deeper than your average Hollywood blockbuster.  It may not quite have the total adoration that 'Stand by Me' enjoys, but this is a worthy compendium piece that should also find an audience in those who enjoyed King's (rare non-horror) story.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life - Not classic `Python,' but still better than most of today's offerings

First of all, are you a `Python' fan? If the answer is `no' then you'll probably hate 'Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life.' If, on the other hand, the answer is `yes' then there stands a chance that you'll enjoy it (or MOST of it!).

Casual fans of the Pythons may not have followed their exploits over their TV series and only seen their previous films - 'The Life of Brian' and 'The Holy Grail.' Those two were indeed classics - brilliantly written, with plenty of laughs and a great (if surreal) storyline.

Perhaps that's the reason 'The Meaning of Life' was not as well received. For a start it's not a story. It's basically a sketch show, loosely tied together with the theme of searching for the meaning of life (obvious, huh?). And, with any sketch show, some of them work and some don't.

Even a die hard Python fan such as myself couldn't see the humour in the opening (short) film entitled `The Crimson Permanent Assurance.' I actually skip that opening segment completely as I barely raise a smile at any of it.  I recently watched it all the way through again and, this time, I did actually 'get' what the writers were going for.  However, I'm now seeing that what I didn't like in the opening 'mini-film' was actually the film's main let-down - it's a good idea, but it goes on too long.  Every sketch is actually good, but those which don't work are the ones that could have been trimmed down by a few minutes.  Perhaps then the Pythons could have even added some more sketches for a higher 'laugh rate.'

However, this is Python after all and, with every `miss' there are still plenty of `hits,' most famously of all the (disgustingly) hilarious `Mr Creosote' sketch which deserves a mention simply because of its brilliant make-up.  I've seen critics mention how most of the laughs now come from 'shock' rather than the team's clever writing and I can - sort of - see where they're coming from.  The bigger budget that the film affords allows them to experiment with more than cheap studio sets. 

Also, don't expect any of the TV series trademark animations.  I know there weren't that many in the Pythons' previous two films, but there are even less here.  Instead, you could almost call 'The Meaning of Life' a 'musical' as it included more than a few songs.  Yes, they're catchy and you'll probably remember the chorus for many years to come, they too suffer from going on for a few minutes too long.

So, if you're not expecting a film up to Brian/Grail's standards and are prepared for a few lulls in the humour, then give this a go. It may not be up to the highest standard of Python, but it's still better than most of the `comedies' around today. 

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Last Boy Scout -They don’t make action films like this any more

I remember when ‘The Last Boy Scout’ was released.  If my memory serves me correctly, it was considered a box off flop.  However, I enjoyed it and, now I come to watch it again over twenty years later, I find that today’s online reaction seems to back up my feelings towards it.  In other words, it’s actually quite fun.

Bruce Willis plays... well, Bruce Willis really.  This could almost be another Die Hard movie by another name.  He’s a wise-cracking alcoholic cop (or ex cop here, to be fair) who ends up taking on the bad guys.  This time he’s investigating the double murder of both his best friend and the client he was meant to protect, but whereas he tended to do things on his own in Die Hard, he’s ably assisted by a disgraced football player, played by Damon Waynes.

The first thing you have to know before you consider watching this is that it’s kind of tongue in cheek.  Today’s action movies seem to be super serious (with the possible exception of the ‘Expendables’ series), so if you’re looking for something tough and gritty, you’ll probably find this one a little too far-fetched.

It certainly has its plus points.  Obviously, there are plenty of shoot outs and car chases, not to mention villains who are uber-villainous and strip clubs to arrange seedy underworld meetings in.  But the film’s major selling point is the chemistry between Willis and Waynes.  They really do play off each other well and the dialogue between them is the very definition of banter.

It is a little far fetched though.  I will always remember a character being thrown off a bridge, landing on a car, only to get up and wander off like nothing had happened.  I think that probably goes down as one of the most ‘hardest to survive’ falls in film history!  Don’t expect too much realism here; like I say – tongue in cheek!

Having looked up some details online recently, I see that the production was apparently ‘fraught with problems’ behind the scenes.  There are plenty of rumours surrounding what happened on set and I don’t know how many are true.  However, I still think that the finished product is actually something pretty good fun and very watchable (if you’re looking for a pretty implausible buddy type cop film).

And, if you’re into internet rumours – look up the one about the squirrel, Bruce Willis’ trailer and the hair-piece.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Ghostbusters (2016 remake) - Not as bad as I thought it would be (and probably not as bad as you feared)

In case you haven’t heard, the 2016 remake of Ghostbusters’ trailer received the most ‘thumbs down’ dislikes on Youtube when it was first released.  This produced cries of ‘misogyny’ from some quarters, as the previously all-male cast has now been replaced with all women.  I suppose when you read this you should know that, I too, am a male.  I too ‘disliked’ the trailer.  And I too am old enough to be only six years old when I saw the original in cinemas all that time ago.

I didn’t dislike the trailer because of the women.  A new Ghostbusters film has been in the works for so long that I’ve heard all sorts of ideas mentioned with what to do with continuing the franchise.  The popular thought was that it would be a sequel where the old boys hand over the torch to a new ghost-busting generation.  That was what I hoped.  What I got was a remake.

Yes, the trailer was awful.  First of all it misled the viewers into thinking it WAS a sequel, only to reveal that it was a remake that looked almost shot-for-shot.  I actually stopped watching the trailer simply because it bored me.  There weren’t enough jokes and the whole thing just looked pointless.  I wasn’t going to watch the film, but ended up taking my eleven year old daughter.  From the moment the film started I was desperate to justify my ‘thumbs down’ – I hated the special effects, I hated the characters, I hated the fact that – yes – the story was basically a photocopied version of the 1985 script.  Then I started smiling.

I use the word ‘smile’ over ‘laugh.’ Laugh may be a little too generous.  There aren’t that many huge belly laughs to be had, but definitely smiling was participated in.  It’s actually not that bad.  The script is a copy, but there are just about enough nice jokes to justify its existence.  Yes, I’d have preferred a sequel, but this could have been a lot worse.  There is plenty of chemistry between the new cast to enjoy it.  I know that not only did people cry ‘sexism’ regarding the treatment of the female leads, but some then went on to add ‘racism’ to the mix when the three white women are all intellectual scientists when the old black lead is merely a subway worker.  Personally, I enjoyed all their performances – even Chris ‘Thor’ Hemsworth was fun (sporting a weird British-Thor hybrid accent) and the surviving old cast members may even show their faces.

If you loved the original Ghostbusters, you still will.  It’s original and perfectly-made.  However, if you haven’t seen it – as many of today’s youth probably won’t – then they will probably justify this film’s existence.  If you love the original then you also probably own it.  Unless you’re taken to see this version I suggest you stick with what you know.  However, if you do find yourself being taken to see the 2016 version, don’t go in to it filled with hate and resentment.  Like I say, it’s not that bad.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that